Jesus is God

[dwight92070]

The Israelites in the Old Testament always knew that the word "Lord" meant God. Sure there were lords who were masters of slaves, servants, etc., but other than that "the Lord" meant God.

So now fast-forward to the New Testament when Jesus is about to be born. Elizabeth, the mother of John, prophesied when Mary entered her house: "And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my LORD would come to me?" She seems to be the first person in the New Testament to call Jesus "LORD". She might not have fully understood it yet, but the Holy Spirit was identifying Jesus as GOD. Luke 1:43

Later, just after Jesus is born, the shepherds outside of Bethlehem are approached by an angel, who said: " ... for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is CHRIST THE LORD". So now we have an angel telling the shepherds that this baby IS the MESSIAH, THE LORD,Who is GOD, because "the Lord" is aways a reference to GOD. First the Holy Spirit tells Elizabeth that Jesus was GOD, the LORD. Then the angel tells the shepherds that Jesus was the LORD, which always means God.

So now, after Jesus' birth, we have two witnesses here telling us that Jesus is the LORD GOD: the Holy Spirit and an angel of the Lord. God was always called LORD, now Jesus is also called LORD.

Don't believe anyone who tells you that the Trinity (although I don't agree with it totally) was an idea totally fabricated by man. God HIMSELF is the ONE responsible for what, at first glance, appears to be a contradiction - the contradiction of 2 LORDS, or we could say, 2 GODS - the Lord God, the Father and the Lord God, the Son Jesus.

From there it was a relatively simple deduction that the Holy Spirit also was God.

I believe the Trinity doctrine, EXCEPT FOR the 3 persons NOT being each other.

Remember Paul said that "there is ONE GOD, the Father ... and ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST." 1 Corinthians 8:6

Did Paul forget that the Father was also LORD? Or did He forget that "LORD" was always a term for God in the Old Testament and that the Holy Spirit and an angel of the Lord carried that same understanding over into the New Testament, so that "LORD JESUS CHRIST" meant that He was God?
I don't think so. He knew that they were equal, yet in another sense, distinct.

[darinhouston]

Any organization or church that denies that Jesus is God - but then you already knew what I was referring to.

Well, I'm not part of any organization or church that denies this - I belong to a fairly conservative conventional Methodist church (not UMC) and I'm not aware of anyone in my congregation who believes this (or thinks about it very long) - so, no, I did not know what you referred to. You might check your attitude here.

[darinhouston]

When we see such indisputable evidence, it's no wonder that organizations who deny that Jesus is God are called cults.

Just trying to show you that it's not indisputable - the cult is usually the one who won't even consider that they could be wrong.

[dwight92070]

Any organization or church that denies that Jesus is God - but then you already knew what I was referring to.

Well, I'm not part of any organization or church that denies this - I belong to a fairly conservative conventional Methodist church (not UMC) and I'm not aware of anyone in my congregation who believes this (or thinks about it very long) - so, no, I did not know what you referred to. You might check your attitude here.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, in most cases, it's a duck. Since you have quoted so many Unitarian sources and lately have been quoting a lot from the Revised English Version Bible, I assumed, apparently wrongly, that you were in the Unitarian church.

[dwight92070]

When we see such indisputable evidence, it's no wonder that organizations who deny that Jesus is God are called cults.

Just trying to show you that it's not indisputable - the cult is usually the one who won't even consider that they could be wrong.

Jesus raised Himself from the dead, and you think that that's NOT indisputable evidence that He is God?

Tell me, what man ever did that?

[dwight92070]

God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Lords.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Gods.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Saviors.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Creators.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Kingdoms.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 with all authority in heaven and earth.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who have power over nature.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who are worthy of worship.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who have authority to forgive sins.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who will ultimately Judge men.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who have power over Satan.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who have power over sickness and disease.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who will send the Holy Spirit to us.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who will answer our prayers.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who have all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who have power over death.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who can work miracles.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 in Whom we must put our faith.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who loved us and gave their life for us.
God Himself created the apparent contradiction of 2 Who have promised us eternal life with them.

We know and believe that there is no contradiction, that whoever or whatever God is, Jesus is.

[darinhouston]

Any organization or church that denies that Jesus is God - but then you already knew what I was referring to.

Well, I'm not part of any organization or church that denies this - I belong to a fairly conservative conventional Methodist church (not UMC) and I'm not aware of anyone in my congregation who believes this (or thinks about it very long) - so, no, I did not know what you referred to. You might check your attitude here.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, in most cases, it's a duck. Since you have quoted so many Unitarian sources and lately have been quoting a lot from the Revised English Version Bible, I assumed, apparently wrongly, that you were in the Unitarian church.

The only organization called the Unitarian church I'm aware of is the Unitarian Universalist church and that has nothing to do with these beliefs. They are not even superficially Christian.

[dwight92070]

Well, I'm not part of any organization or church that denies this - I belong to a fairly conservative conventional Methodist church (not UMC) and I'm not aware of anyone in my congregation who believes this (or thinks about it very long) - so, no, I did not know what you referred to. You might check your attitude here.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, in most cases, it's a duck. Since you have quoted so many Unitarian sources and lately have been quoting a lot from the Revised English Version Bible, I assumed, apparently wrongly, that you were in the Unitarian church.

The only organization called the Unitarian church I'm aware of is the Unitarian Universalist church and that has nothing to do with these beliefs. They are not even superficially Christian.

A simple online search reveals many Unitarian churches is this country - and that they reject the Trinity. The Revised English Version seems to be closely associated with a Revised English Version commentary, which is closely associated a Unitarian church. Exactly what that association is, I don't know. Up til now, I haven't seen a real plain explanation of all that. I will continue to research, but I did notice that you seemed to prefer the REV translation for some of your posts, and I believe you also quoted the REV commentary. At first glance it appears that the REV was written with an anti - Trinitarian bias, along with the REV commentary. Is that correct?

[jeremiah]

Hi Dwight,

...Jesus raised Himself from the dead, and you think that that's NOT indisputable evidence that He is God?..

Are you here referring to Jesus saying he had the power to lay his life down and power to take back up again? Is this why you say he raised himself from the dead? If so, i think this is simply a misunderstanding of his statement. Every where i'm aware of in the new testament writings, it states either God or the spirit of God raised Jesus from the dead, explicitly. Not that he raised himself from the dead

If you're referring to John 2, even there I don't think you have a home run. Jesus indeed says to the pharisees "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again." But then John goes on in the couple sentences say, "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered..." If John believed Jesus meant he[Jesus] would raise himself from the dead, why then did he not phrase the "rising" of Jesus as active? John uses the passive voice here in saying "he was risen from the dead", in flawless agreement with the rest of the new testament, wherein God raised Jesus from the dead.

I think it's more likely Jesus was speaking prophetically by the spirit of God in saying "he would raised it up again", or some other explanation. This is because, If John understood his words as you do(if you do), I think it most likely he would have said, "when therefore Jesus rose[in the active voice] from the dead, his disciples remembered...". John had just before clarified for us that Jesus was speaking of 'the temple of his body", but then doesn't further interpret, as you seem to maybe, that Jesus was indeed the one performing the action of his own resurrection, the action was performed upon him.

[dwight92070]

The REV of the Bible seems to go hand-in-hand with the REV commentary. The "translators" might as well have said, "Not only are we providing you with 'our' translation of the Bible, but we are also providing you with the "proper" interpretation of the Bible - (which just happens to be anti-Trinitarian).

They also are not very straight forward with letting you know that. Apparently they are content with not letting you know that up front. That alone makes their "translation" suspect from the get go.